SCOTUS rules in favor of bakery in gay wedding cake case

[CommuterBob]

In a 7-2 ruling, the SCOTUS finds in favor of the bakery for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

"...government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause."

The crux of this case boils down to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission essentially discounting the religious belief of the baker - including at times insulting it - in their ruling.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Good. The government should not tell people how to run their business.

Now I hope this bakery gets run out of town and goes bankrupt for being disgusting backwards hicks.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Interesting- I argued this in the past and had the usual suspects call me a bigot and full of shit.

A victory for the constitution today.

 

[UCFWayne]

good, this is a victory for everyone.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

 

[CommuterBob]

good, this is a victory for everyone.

Keep in mind the ruling did not really set precedent and more or less punted on the issue overall. The ruling is very specific that it's not based on the rights of the religious vs the rights of the consumer, but rather that it ruled that the CCRC was discriminatory in its ruling against the baker because it was not neutral to the religious beliefs of the baker.

"...the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires. Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside."

It's an important distinction because, as I said, it punts on the real issue.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Keep in mind the ruling did not really set precedent and more or less punted on the issue overall. The ruling is very specific that it's not based on the rights of the religious vs the rights of the consumer, but rather that it ruled that the CCRC was discriminatory in its ruling against the baker because it was not neutral to the religious beliefs of the baker.

"...the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires. Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside."

It's an important distinction because, as I said, it punts on the real issue.

The de facto position in the constitution is that religious beliefs are protected. Period.

This ruling, as you said, simply stated that many governments who slant left have put in place absurd “civil rights” laws that essentially strip away protection of religious expression at the individual level

 

[CommuterBob]

The de facto position in the constitution is that religious beliefs are protected. Period.

This ruling, as you said, simply stated that many governments who slant left have put in place absurd “civil rights” laws that essentially strip away protection of religious expression at the individual level

Actually, no, I didn't say that, and neither did the ruling. In fact, the ruling discusses nothing you said in your second paragraph. It even acknowledges that there will be other cases coming on this very issue and that this ruling does nothing to settle it.

Here's a brief write-up on the decision that agrees with me.

http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/201...colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/

 

[UCFWayne]

Keep in mind the ruling did not really set precedent and more or less punted on the issue overall. The ruling is very specific that it's not based on the rights of the religious vs the rights of the consumer, but rather that it ruled that the CCRC was discriminatory in its ruling against the baker because it was not neutral to the religious beliefs of the baker.

"...the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires. Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside."

It's an important distinction because, as I said, it punts on the real issue.

i dont think it punted it. i think it reaffirmed what the constitution originally gave protections for. i think the 7-2 vote affirms it as well.

 

[CommuterBob]

i dont think it punted it. i think it reaffirmed what the constitution originally gave protections for. i think the 7-2 vote affirms it as well.

It definitely punted on it. Yes, it reaffirms that the State cannot discriminate on religious grounds, which it holds that the CCRC did. What it did not do was settle the debate between religious beliefs and civil rights.

http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/201...colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/

"But as for the broader issue of serving same-sex couples, the Court clearly indicated that future legal battles await – law professor Rick Hasen described it as a “punt.”



"Several times in the majority opinion, the Justices fully acknowledged that future court battles are likely on the underlying question of whether a business could refuse to serve a same-sex couple."

 

[sk8knight]

Actually, no, I didn't say that, and neither did the ruling. In fact, the ruling discusses nothing you said in your second paragraph. It even acknowledges that there will be other cases coming on this very issue and that this ruling does nothing to settle it.

Here's a brief write-up on the decision that agrees with me.

http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/201...colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/

It is still murky but what it did provide is precedent that the state may not reject the legitimacy of a religion’s beliefs and practices. So the states will have to find something else to hang their hats on rather than ruling that the religion is not valid. Such as claiming that baking a cake is not a freedom of expression issue.

 

[fried-chicken]

Good. The government should not tell people how to run their business.

Now I hope this bakery gets run out of town and goes bankrupt for being disgusting backwards hicks.

The government always tells people how to run their businesses in the spirit of protecting citizens. The government sets pollution limits, safety standards, reserve ratios, employment regulations, discrimination protections, and on and on and on.

So, why shouldn't the government protect citizens from discrimination? Many think they should just purchase a seperate but equal cake from a different bakery.

If you can't deny service to a black man or an Asian man or a Jewish man or a Christian man based only on those traits then you shouldn't be able to deny service to a gay man. The government does not recognize and protect prejudice and in no way is your ability to practice your religion impacted by baking a cake and it going into a mouth that has also housed a penis at some point.

 

[The Branch]

Good. The government should not tell people how to run their business.

Now I hope this bakery gets run out of town and goes bankrupt for being disgusting backwards hicks.

You almost made a decent point .... then you started calling names.

I agree the government shouldn't be involved in that issue ... and also agree that if this ticks off the local community they shouldn't patronize the business. Its a free market.

 

[UCFKnight85]

It definitely punted on it. Yes, it reaffirms that the State cannot discriminate on religious grounds, which it holds that the CCRC did. What it did not do was settle the debate between religious beliefs and civil rights.

http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/201...colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/

"But as for the broader issue of serving same-sex couples, the Court clearly indicated that future legal battles await – law professor Rick Hasen described it as a “punt.”

View embedded media

"Several times in the majority opinion, the Justices fully acknowledged that future court battles are likely on the underlying question of whether a business could refuse to serve a same-sex couple."

Saying there will be further battles doesn't dispute what we're saying. There are always new avenues of unresolved legal grey area that will need to go to the Circuit Courts or higher to the SC.

 

[UCFWayne]

It is still murky but what it did provide is precedent that the state may not reject the legitimacy of a religion’s beliefs and practices. So the states will have to find something else to hang their hats on rather than ruling that the religion is not valid. Such as claiming that baking a cake is not a freedom of expression issue.

this was clearly a punt*

 

[UCFKnight85]

PS- here's Justice Kennedy absolutely destroying the argument that many anti-Religious bigots on this board have routinely tried to use; and here he is demonstrating how many of these state commissions are packed with hostile anti-religious zealots, who hold an open contempt for anyone claiming to hold a religious belief.

 

[NinjaKnight]

You almost made a decent point .... then you started calling names.

I agree the government shouldn't be involved in that issue ... and also agree that if this ticks off the local community they shouldn't patronize the business. Its a free market.

I made a perfect point. There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

 

[NinjaKnight]

PS- here's Justice Kennedy absolutely destroying the argument that many anti-Religious bigots on this board have routinely tried to use; and here he is demonstrating how many of these state commissions are packed with hostile anti-religious zealots, who hold an open contempt for anyone claiming to hold a religious belief.

lol there is nothing more pathetic than 85 going off on one of his "poor discriminated against white male christian" speeches. Let me get out the world's tiniest violin for you, I'm sure everyone feels real sorry for how tough you guys have it.

 

[The Branch]

I made a perfect point. There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

"disgusting hicks" ... is calling a spade a spade?

And yet you are completely against the Roseann comment in the other thread.

 

[NinjaKnight]

"disgusting hicks" ... is calling a spade a spade?

And yet you are completely against the Roseann comment in the other thread.

If people are so patheticly hypocritical to not make a cake based on the type wedding then yes, they are 100% disgusting hicks. I don't see how Roseanns racist comments have anything to do with this.

 

[fried-chicken]

"disgusting hicks" ... is calling a spade a spade?

And yet you are completely against the Roseann comment in the other thread.

Please tell me you didn't just make an comparison of calling people disgusting hicks to calling a black woman an ape.

 

[CommuterBob]

It is still murky but what it did provide is precedent that the state may not reject the legitimacy of a religion’s beliefs and practices. So the states will have to find something else to hang their hats on rather than ruling that the religion is not valid. Such as claiming that baking a cake is not a freedom of expression issue.

That issue's not precedent though. Many cases before this one have set that precedent and reaffirmed it. This case just further reaffirms it.

Also keep in ind that the incident that stemmed the case happened in 2012, when Colorado law did not allow same-sex marriage (I guess it does now). And the fact that the baker in question offered other solutions - other than custom-creating a cake - and other baked goods that he had for sale.

 

[The Branch]

If people are so patheticly hypocritical to not make a cake based on the type wedding then yes, they are 100% disgusting hicks. I don't see how Roseanns racist comments have anything to do with this.

This is the crux of the problem, isn't it. Because you hate religion and you are not religious, you absolutely cannot understand the people that are. Since you don't understand it, you just call them names and insult them.

You think it's enlightened and necessary. It's actually childish and immature.

 

[The Branch]

Please tell me you didn't just make an comparison of calling people disgusting hicks to calling a black woman an ape.

I believe she called her a half-ape. She said it was a cross between the muslim brotherhood and the planet of the apes. Get it right.

Like I mentioned in the other thread, I continue to be amazed at how you and ninja can continually refer to or support people that call women, people from the south, and christians all sorts of names ..... but you ONLY draw the line at racial terms.

 

[UCFKnight85]

This is the crux of the problem, isn't it. Because you hate religion and you are not religious, you absolutely cannot understand the people that are. Since you don't understand it, you just call them names and insult them.

You think it's enlightened and necessary. It's actually childish and immature.

I love that I have the person you're responding to on ignore, yet can identify EXACTLY who you're talking to given your comments about hating religious people and insulting them.

 

[UCFWayne]

I love that I have the person you're responding to on ignore, yet can identify EXACTLY who you're talking to given your comments about hating religious people and insulting them.

is there a group that he hasnt insulted? probably those people with a D after their name

 

[NinjaKnight]

This is the crux of the problem, isn't it. Because you hate religion and you are not religious, you absolutely cannot understand the people that are. Since you don't understand it, you just call them names and insult them.

You think it's enlightened and necessary. It's actually childish and immature.

Oh ok, I'm the one who is childish and immature in a thread about people who won't bake a cake for two people who love each other all because the baker's think they are icky. You are just as ignorant as the bakers if you can't see the difference.

is there a group that he hasnt insulted? probably those people with a D after their name

Of course you post absolute bullshit yet again, as if it's your job on here.

 

[NinjaKnight]

I love that I have the person you're responding to on ignore, yet can identify EXACTLY who you're talking to given your comments about hating religious people and insulting them.

That is impressive since your snowflake self has half the board on ignore.

 

[Happy Hands]

If I made a cupcake and then it told me it wants to be a wedding cake when it grows up, I would assume that it is gay and still support it.

Why is the baker fighting this? It's not like it is one of those over sexualized Zebra cakes that tempts you from the end caps all wrapped in see through clothing because Little Debbie never made sure there was a positive male role model around.

 

[sk8knight]

That issue's not precedent though. Many cases before this one have set that precedent and reaffirmed it. This case just further reaffirms it.

Also keep in ind that the incident that stemmed the case happened in 2012, when Colorado law did not allow same-sex marriage (I guess it does now). And the fact that the baker in question offered other solutions - other than custom-creating a cake - and other baked goods that he had for sale.

The rebuke is important, though, because it signals the lower courts as to the leanings of the Supreme on this matter. Which, hopefully, will lead to similar rulings in lower courts where a government entity has behaved in similar manners.

 

[chemmie]

This is the crux of the problem, isn't it. Because you hate religion and you are not religious, you absolutely cannot understand the people that are. Since you don't understand it, you just call them names and insult them.

You think it's enlightened and necessary. It's actually childish and immature.

Calling them names doesn't have anything to do with their religion, and everything to do with their decision to NOT bake a cake for homosexuals because they are c*nts.


Oh no. I called these individuals c*nts. This is now the worst possible thing ever. Even worse than calling black people apes.

 

[fabknight]

Calling them names doesn't have anything to do with their religion, and everything to do with their decision to NOT bake a cake for homosexuals because they are c*nts.

You're ridiculing the decision based on their religious beliefs and conviction. What's the difference? You should be praising them for having conviction and the balls to live by them in this keyboard SJW world.

 

[UCFWayne]

You're ridiculing the decision based on their religious beliefs and conviction. What's the difference? You should be praising them for having conviction and the balls to live by them in this keyboard SJW world.

especially in todays world where a social backlash was inevitable.

 

[NinjaKnight]

You're ridiculing the decision based on their religious beliefs and conviction. What's the difference? You should be praising them for having conviction and the balls to live by them in this keyboard SJW world.

So religious beliefs and convictions give you the ability to be giant c*nts and no one can call you a giant c*nt?

 

[chemmie]

You're ridiculing the decision based on their religious beliefs and conviction. What's the difference? You should be praising them for having conviction and the balls to live by them in this keyboard SJW world.

I don't care what their reasoning is.

They are c*nts for choosing not to serve other people because of their sexual orientation. They could do it because of their religion, because they are hateful jerkoffs, or because Papa Smurf told them to do it. Being religious doesn't absolve you from being a c*nt.

 

[UCFKnight85]

You're ridiculing the decision based on their religious beliefs and conviction. What's the difference? You should be praising them for having conviction and the balls to live by them in this keyboard SJW world.

What's sad, but clearly evident, is that the language used by the hateful bigot on the Colorado commission could have just as easily been said by any of our resident anti-religion hateful bigots on this board. i.e. Ninja, chemmie, and FC

And you have to ask yourself- how many other "commissions" like this in states run by left wing extremists have similar hateful bigots on them?

Luckily we had the Supreme Court in this instance to reign in the anti-religious bigotry and hatred that these people are pushing for to be the norm in America.

 

[chemmie]

Gotta love 85 blocking Ninja and I, but continuously communicating with Ninja and I by proxy. The guy is seriously the biggest toolbag on the planet. No wonder he doesn't please his wife sexually.

 

[UCFWayne]

Gotta love 85 blocking Ninja and I, but continuously communicating with Ninja and I by proxy. The guy is seriously the biggest toolbag on the planet. No wonder he doesn't please his wife sexually.

that is uncalled for

 

[fabknight]

I don't care what their reasoning is.

They are c*nts for choosing not to serve other people because of their sexual orientation. They could do it because of their religion, because they are hateful jerkoffs, or because Papa Smurf told them to do it. Being religious doesn't absolve you from being a c*nt.

I guess you're entitled to your hypocritical, hateful opinion but the courts upheld it. You're going to love this...from a religious aspect, I could say they were doing it out love for their fellow man. I don't ever expect you to understand it since you think all religion is hogwash, Christians are all idiots and that God doesn't exist.

 

[Crazyhole]

Who is more hateful, the baker who doesnt want to bake a cake for religious reasons or the militants who respond with disrespectful rhetoric and openly root for the demise of that baker?